Some Fear Kansas Ruling May Spur Abortion Violence

[dairygirl4u2c]

saying it's fighting evil with evil so we shouldnt do it... is like saying we shouldn't have stopped hitler, or mengale, or someone about to kill another person etc.
but i wont get into the arguments. they've all been made, it's laid out in the link below. the choice is yours, which side of the fence your on- evil and those who are anti-kill tiller, or the good side:

http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=94559&view=&hl=tiller shot abortion&fromsearch=1

again there are some interesting distinctions that could be made about 'when' and 'how' tiller should have been killed... but it is undisputable to me that he should have been, with or without the rule of law on our side.

[aalpha1989]

[quote name='Happy_Catholic' date='13 January 2010 - 06:23 PM' timestamp='1263425011' post='2036508']
Tiller could have repented. He could have been provided those unborn children with a powerful advocate. But instead some moron murdered him. What's sad abotu this, is while only God and Tiller know for sure, Tiller died in a serious state of mortal sin, and as a "christian" he was supposed to know better. Chances are high he's in a very hot place right now.

People who kill abortionists, aren't just killing their mortal lives.
[/quote]

I think that violence directly against abortionists is imprudent and does more to hurt the pro-life cause than to help; that being said, Aquinas argued that capital punishment did nothing to harm the offender's soul. He said that God offers the grace of repentence at all times, and that the offender does not miss any grace. We need to trust that God offered the same opportunity at the end of Tiller's life that would have been offered later, had Tiller survived. God WANTS us in heaven, even abortionists. Aquinas goes further and states that, had Tiller refused to repent later in life and died in a state of mortal sin, he would surely have committed more atrocities and would have greater suffering in Hell. Capital punishment can therefore be seen as an act of mercy; not only to society (which it can surely be), but also to the criminal himself, because it saves him some punishment in the afterlife.

Again, I don't agree with the slaughter of abortionists. It could potentially be justified, but is definitely imprudent. We should not, however, argue against it because it denies the abortionist the chance of repentance. To say that is to betray a lack of hope. We can and should still hope for George Tiller's salvation, and not deny that God made every effort to bring him home.

Edit: Also the State should enforce laws supporting life, and the individual shouldn't take these laws into his own hands in the way that Roeder did.

Edited January 14, 2010 by aalpha1989

[cmotherofpirl]

One cannot claim to be christian then proceed to commit murder.
The end never justifies the means.

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' date='13 January 2010 - 07:50 PM' timestamp='1263430227' post='2036553']
One cannot claim to be christian then proceed to commit murder.
The end never justifies the means.
[/quote]

Cmother, you are presuming that the means was immoral. It is, in fact, a presumption. What is the universal definition of "murder?"

The Catechism says: "2261 Scripture specifies [b]the prohibition contained in the fifth commandment:[/b] "Do not [b]slay the innocent [/b]and the[b] [/b][b]righteous.[/b]"The deliberate murder of an [b]innocent [/b]person is gravely contrary to the dignity of the human being, to the golden rule, and to the holiness of the Creator. The law forbidding it is universally valid: it obliges each and everyone, always and everywhere."

"Innocent" or "righteous." Which of those words was applicable to Tiller?

Actual "innocence" and "guilt," despite the modern misconception, is actually ontologically independent of an incantation by a man in a black robe, and can quite frequently be determined just as "infallibly" [i]without[/i] said incantation.

~Sternhauser

Edited January 14, 2010 by Sternhauser

[dairygirl4u2c]

at least i try to give the benefit of the doubt. [mod]personal attack - Lil Red[/mod]

Edited January 14, 2010 by Lil Red
personal attack

[dairygirl4u2c]

i dont think it's even imprudent to have killed him. the chance of abortion change reallyh occurring through heart changes or political process, isn't very high. it is higher than im giving it credit for in that last sentence though.

perhaps the few hundred per year that would be saved by tiller's death, or at least while his abortions were put on hiatus for awhile, those few, or the ones that do not beocme doctors late term out of fear and thus lives are saved.... there's a small amount, granted. perhaps those 'few' who die, are permissible given there is at least a chance, at least plausible if not 'reasonable' that abortion change might occur. and, the argument goes, if we become violent, no change will occur. i suppose it's reasonable, as ive always admitted, even in the old threads. but, i dont think abortion change is high enough, and i dont see the violence that was done as having hurt the abortion movement. (though if everyone believed he shoulda been shot, who is prolife... would that hurt the movement? maybe. i suppose it just comes down to i dont think change is high enough likely)

[aalpha1989]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' date='13 January 2010 - 07:50 PM' timestamp='1263430227' post='2036553']
One cannot claim to be christian then proceed to commit murder.
The end never justifies the means.
[/quote]

I wasn't clear in my post. In fact I was very unclear. I didn't mean to defend Roeder's actions, I only meant that it may not be objectively sinful to kill an abortionist... the case I was thinking of was trial by court of law and by means of capital punishment. I don't agree with what Roeder did.

[Happy_Catholic]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' date='13 January 2010 - 09:01 PM' timestamp='1263434467' post='2036600']

perhaps the few hundred per year that would be saved by tiller's death, or at least while his abortions were put on hiatus for awhile, those few, or the ones that do not beocme doctors late term out of fear and thus lives are saved.... there's a small amount
[/quote]

Several years ago when some other abortionist (I forgot his name) was shot dead in the driveway of his home in front of his wife and children, the other local abortion clinics got together and offered times and abortions for free for those women who were booked into that particular dead abortionist's clinic.

There is the risk that MORE unborn will be culled, as the media will attack the Pro-Life movement en masse and thus provide a very negative view of the truth and chances are a lot of women might be weary of pro-lifers and seek abortions as a solution to their unplanned pregnancy. There are even articles I've read lately written by medical students and young doctors who are now pointing their studies and careers into the abortion industry, Tiller has become a hero, a martyr. We don't need this. The unborn don't need this.

And with all that is said and done, if people who shoot abortionists or support the killing of abortionist because they think it will save babies, why are they aiming so low? If they truly beleive its useful and saves life, then go all out. Blow the stuffing out of every abortion clinic in town. Surely it can't be too hard to get a bunch of like minded individuals together with a few trucks of fuel and park up along side those mills and let rip. Or why not wait till an Unplanned Parenthood or NARAL conference, perhaps even Tiller's funeral, and go in there with a few machine guns and have at it. Surely killing 20 abortionists or 200 abortionists is going to save more children then blasting Tiller's brains out?

The logic that supports death for a few to save a few more is always flawed. Violence begets more violence. This has been said many times. This is the not the same as war, this is not the same as stopping Hitler, this is a different kettle of fish. A pro-lifers we cannot allow such violence or even a tolerance of such violence into our midst. The enemy's tactic is violence. We have to win them over with Love. ISn't that what Jesus taught? Turn the other cheek? Bless your enemies?

Christians. That means we follow Christ. Not our inward blood lust.

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='Happy_Catholic' date='14 January 2010 - 12:11 AM' timestamp='1263445903' post='2036774']

The logic that supports death for a few to save a few more is always flawed. Violence begets more violence. This has been said many times. This is the not the same as war, this is not the same as stopping Hitler, this is a different kettle of fish. A pro-lifers we cannot allow such violence or even a tolerance of such violence into our midst. The enemy's tactic is violence.
[/quote]

If this were true, the Church would have condemned all violence as immoral. It has not. It never will.

~Sternhauser

[dairygirl4u2c]

I like that you’re hashing out new territory on these issues, per chance of change. More fodder for thought. Which I take all I get, cause im someone who would have killed tiller myself, were I not such a coward, or were I later in life or close to death myself anyway. (yes id go down in flames on the issue. Not that im satisfying my blood lust. I have, or had that, but I dealth with it… the underlying reason has always been cold brute reasoning on my part. At least my view of it)

The medical students stuffis formidable, and the other stuff somewhat too…. we might harden people to become the next tiller. Whether abortions have gone down is also an empirical question. If ya look at the long tiller thread, you’ll see news positing that I quoted that said that the abortions have gone down (if im not mistaken) because of his death, some abortions couldn’t occur. And even though the other two big name abortionists came in to take over… it took several months for that to happen. Surely a few lives were saved- even one life was worth it (unless it causes too much hardening… which is something to take into consideration given the numbers are lower, granted).
Even the prolife news articles I quoted, both sides seems to say, or at least a significant portion, that killing htem would make a difference. There’s that one about the prochoice guy saying ‘yknow I don’t agree with em. But if I did, why aren’t they out there killing the abortion doctors? That’s what’d happen if three year olds were being killed every week. It seems like their arguments are based on pretense than actual concern for the kids.’

My guess is most of those students were just pissed off, and thinking about the issues superficially, like most people do. They don’t realize the types of abortions that he did. most wouldn’t do what he did. some will inetivably become hardened to the point of tiller (not sure it’s cause of his killings or not though)… but not many.
and in any case, look at it this way… the reason abortionists don’t do what tiller did… is granted first of all because we have to give people more credit, what he did was unhuman any way you slice it – but mainly because of the fear of death (why put yourself into that when you’re a doctor and make decent otherwise? What tiller did was lucrative for him, given the limited supply of doctors, that’s a fact… but most wouldn’t risk it. u can bet someone would do it if the bottom line was high enough, if it didn’t mean risking hteir life) so the fear of death, which has to be based on something for that to continue, ie killings, has prevented more abortionists (actual abortions prevented? id suppose some given they all couldnt get to tiller, as u'd find if ya read up on him).

What’s needed at this time is not for us to shy away thinking what was done was wrwong… but to in fact make it clear that it’s gonna keep going that way. That way we can maintain the status quo of fear of death and few late terms such as him. that way, we could within reasonable expectation prevent any abortion doctors late term. There’s only two more that do any thing like him (I think from what ive read that tiller was in a leaque of his own… the other two mostlyh did bad fetus abortions, not just aesthetic ones- he former of which are abortions that you would never be able to prevent). One of htem took over for tiller. If they were gone, there’d be none. And if any came along eventually, those rare ones that history has proven aren’t many even in the face of indignation on their part for fear of death…. If they came along, they’d be gone too.

We need an abortion mafia here, on these late term random ones. Course, some would be lunatic enough to have their own demarcations and do all abortionists… but that’s their own issue they have to work out, they’re wrong for thinking that way. (as mentioned in that last thread, the big one…. We surely don’t go out blowing up abortion clinics, cause that’d have no effect—late term ones might cause there’s so few and unwilling to do it. )
We could get a group that’s more reasonable about it all. The reason any abortion doctors might come along, is cause there’s not a strong enough resistence on this, it’s all too whimsical- an even if they did come along anyway, they’d be dead when they rarely do. We need More than just some lone gunman who most think is a nut.
again, think three year olds being killed. Same political chance of change, heart change etc. same resistence by even the prolife cause to do anything about it. we’d have a resistence group for sure. that’s what’s needed now.
most people wont do the group, but most i think support it... 'it was just some whack abortionist' etc etc... that's why even the judge was willing to allow it as a voluntary manslaughter argument etc- people secretly support him. and u know you'd have resistence groups with that factor thrown into the equation too- there's not going to be much in the way of resistence other htan what's forallyu required by law, and the few who are jsut as adament about allowing them to do their wicked acts.

It is an empirical question, the number of lives saved killing him alone. I might be wrong, but I doubt it. but either way, with more would almost surely be saved if we had stronger resistence to kill more, a precense. And either way, we should at least be plotting this stuff, to form the coalition etc, even if we decided it was infeasible. Most here wont even do that much. That’s a travesty, said in a detached way, not just me being emotive.

Edited January 14, 2010 by dairygirl4u2c

[Happy_Catholic]

[quote name='Sternhauser' date='14 January 2010 - 12:25 AM' timestamp='1263446725' post='2036788']
If this were true, the Church would have condemned all violence as immoral. It has not. It never will.

~Sternhauser
[/quote]

Never say never!

[Happy_Catholic]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' date='14 January 2010 - 12:52 AM' timestamp='1263448375' post='2036803']
...cause im someone who would have killed tiller myself, were I not such a coward, or were I later in life or close to death myself anyway.[/quote]

Why would being a coward matter? Surely if people really thought that abortionists needed to be killed they'd do it. Such individuals could take a page out of the Islamic terrorist playbook. Just drum it into yourself, or even others you intend to "recruit" into the cause that it could be done and was justified.

With that said, what's stopping you, or anyone who supports killing aboritonists from blowing up clinics? Does being a coward really prevent someone getting a few molotovs and turfing them at a local abortion clinic? It wouldn't take much to think hard about how the situation could work. Case the abortion clinic for a few weeks, get an idea for the feel of the routine, then roll up at 2 in the morning balaclava clad with some gloves on and a few bottles of petrol and let her rip! And if you're in a death penalty state then you'd just spend a few years in prison because blowing up a building doesn't tend to get you a date with the needle.

Don't get me wrong, there was a time when I debated the pros and cons of the options of sniping an abortionist. But I didn't, you know, because God made it very clear to me I was NOT to do this, that it was WRONG, that I am not to lower myself to that level of behaviour.

All life belongs to God. The unborn, the woman, the abortionist, Tiller. Only He has the right to take life. No one has the right to take another's life.

RE: medical students

I don't think we can really argue that abortions went down because of Tiller's death, it could have gone down because of the normal quirks of statistics. There will always be rises and falls in abortion numbers. The drop may have had absolutely nothing to do with Tiller's demise, or it might have had everything. We can't say for sure.

RE: Replacement abortionists

Those two abortionists are butchers. They have a poor history of botching procedures.

And is it worth it? I mean, if we really start playing the "one life for another" game, is it ever worth it to kill one to save another? I dislike that line of thought because it can lead down very prickly roads. What if a "murderer" gene was found, would that justify aborting all foeti that were screened and found to have the gene, on the premise that killing them would save lives?

Tiller was killing, he was killing viable children, but was it right to kill him?

How would God view this? Because isn't this the crux of the issue, God's opinion on the matter? Yes, there are verses in the OT where God commands the slicing open of pregnant belies and dashing the heads of babes against rocks, but that is God's right, only He has the right to command the destruction of human life.

Then we must ask if God had instructed Roeder's actions.

RE: Articles expressing abortionist deaths lower abortion numbers

Then why not kill all of them? Surely, if you believe a sin is being committed, by the abortionists, and that killing one abortionist saves one unborn child, and you do nothing, then aren't you committing a worse sin by not killing them, isn't the blood of those children on your hands as much as it is on the abortionists? Perhaps even more so?

If you saw your neighbour beating his two year old's head with a hammer would you not intervene?

What if the neighbour was doing this in his locked house and all you had to go to by were the screams and the shadows against the drawn curtains?

What if your neighbour told you that at 1500hrs he was going to put a hammer through the temple of his two year old child?

Would you intervene? If you didn't, wouldn't that make you even more liable for the crime of murder because you knew, could have stopped it, yet did nothing?

If you really beleive that killing abortionists is justified as aboritonists are murdering children, then what will you say to God when He asks you why you did nothing?

RE: P1ssed off Med students

Yes, that is probably true. But what if two of them take up Tiller's mantle? So instead of one, greying abortionist doing these kinds of abortions, that would kill a few hundred children a year, you'd have two young abortionists doing thousands of these abortions a year.

RE: Abortionist not doing Tiller's work

Not many people with such mental and emotional instability make it to where Tiller got in his career. But there will always be equally twisted people who will. There's a joke "What do you call the guy who finishes last in medical school?.... An abortionist".

RE: Abortionist and fear ofdeath

Of course. There were some abortionists who gave up their jobs after that other abortionist was murdered several years ago. I read an article where one abortionist was asked why he gave up, and he said "Because I was sh1t scared". So yes, fear is a good motivator to keep people out of this job.

But then, imagine, how much fear it woudl strike into the black pits they call hearts if you went and blew up an conference of 1000 abortionists and abortion support staff?

RE: Tiller's abortion business lucrative for him

I think for Tiller it was more of an ego boost. He liked being known as a Hero.

But we have to realise that these people really love abortion, they really see it as a needed human right. Just as some Christians go into countries where they risk being killed by the natives for their attempt to convert, there will be people who risk death by becoming abortionists.

And besides, the numbers don't support the fear mongering. Since Roe only about 8 abortionists and support staff have been murdered. 8 over almost 40 years. That's nothing. More hair dressers and accountants have been killed because of their jobs then abortionists.

[quote]What’s needed at this time is not for us to shy away thinking what was done was wrwong… but to in fact make it clear that it’s gonna keep going that way. That way we can maintain the status quo of fear of death and few late terms such as him.[/quote]

We can say its wrong and still push the notion that this will continue. Becuase it will. In fact, under Obama I reckon it will increase, as more and more unstable people with all sorts of crack pot agendas will become irate due to Obama's pro-abortion policies.

The two things aren't mutually exclusive. We can push the immoral actions of killing abortionists without loosing credibility for our quest to save the unborn yet at the same time we must not denounce the fact that there will be those who pick up a gun and go nuts.

And then there are those cases where people know that if they want attention they just have to attack an abortionist or abortion mill.

[quote]There’s only two more that do any thing like him (I think from what ive read that tiller was in a leaque of his own… the other two mostlyh did bad fetus abortions, not just aesthetic ones- he former of which are abortions that you would never be able to prevent). [/quote]

Actually, no. There are more then three in the country. You have fallen for the "oh, woe is us, who will kill our late term foeti" pro-abortion BS.

http://realchoice.blogspot.com/2009/05/get-your-facts-right-ap.html

This woman is one of the best providers of information for abortion on the web.

[quote]One of htem took over for tiller. If they were gone, there’d be none. And if any came along eventually, those rare ones that history has proven aren’t many even in the face of indignation on their part for fear of death…. If they came along, they’d be gone too. [/quote]

We're probably staring down the barrel of a hidden abortion industry. They're doing abortions in hospitals and it wouldn't take much to hide a LTA there. There's plenty of places and people doing these abortions and surely not affraid because not a lot of people know they do it.

[quote]It is an empirical question, the number of lives saved killing him alone. I might be wrong, but I doubt it. but either way, with more would almost surely be saved if we had stronger resistence to kill more, a precense. And either way, we should at least be plotting this stuff, to form the coalition etc, even if we decided it was infeasible. Most here wont even do that much. That’s a travesty, said in a detached way, not just me being emotive.
[/quote]

The problem with the pro-abortion movement is they're short sighted. When they started harping on about abortion in the 60s and 70s their desire was "safe, legal and rare", well, more and more information is proving its only legal, the other two, not so much.

We cannot allow ourselves as a movement to be conned into this mindset that killing is helpful. IS that what we want of the pro-life movement? To be a violent fringe element of society full of Rambo wantabees? What sort of society would we be crafting if we allowed, or even supported it? How far would it go? Would a civil war begin over abortion?

ITs the pro-aborts that think killing a human being solves their problems, for God's sake, lets not become like them!

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='Happy_Catholic' date='14 January 2010 - 01:00 AM' timestamp='1263448830' post='2036806']
Never say never!
[/quote]

To condemn all violence as immoral would be to contradict what the Church has always taught.

[Happy_Catholic]

[quote name='Resurrexi' date='14 January 2010 - 02:13 AM' timestamp='1263453214' post='2036831']
To condemn all violence as immoral would be to contradict what the Church has always taught.
[/quote]

And that would be....?

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='Happy_Catholic' date='14 January 2010 - 02:16 AM' timestamp='1263453396' post='2036832']
And that would be....?
[/quote]

That it is morally acceptable to use violence if doing so is necessary to defend oneself.